PA abortionist, and barbarian, may face death penalty.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Did you even read the link? Where do you think unwanted babies go after being born?

"How many children were adopted with public agency involvement in FY 2009? 57,466"
"How old were the children when they were adopted from the public foster care system?"
Less than 1 Year
2%
1,136

"How many children entered foster care during FY 2009? 255,418"
Less than 1 Year
16%
40,931


So by your logic if the second is not contingent on the first, and the statement that there are more couples waiting than babies available is true, there should be no babies in foster care...

Being in foster care doesn't mean you are eligible to be adopted. Often they have parents who are unable to care for them.

[Itse]

This is pretty typical example of a case where people keep hoping there would be a clear, logical reasoning on which they could base their moral intuition on. Unfortunately, it's not going to stay arbitrary. On the one end, there's a bunch of cells, on the other, there's a baby. The point where that changes is indefinable, so we all have to make our own decisions, using what logics are intuitive to us.

This is also pretty much why I am pro-choice, to a point. (Which I think is mostly somewhere around 22 weeks.) Trying to force arbitrary moral values like this upon others does not lead to good things.

[pylon]

After reading the article yesterday, I have given myself a crash course in late term abortions. And any sensible human being cannot see this as anything but killing a living being, period. I am sure, in a couple hundred years, this will be looked back upon as a barbaric, horrific, and primative act. I am sure by that time, reproduction will be a more predictable science to avoid these scenarios, but even taking scientific or religious implications out of it, this is nothing more than sugar coating the human equivelant of drowning unwanted kittens, or stomping the sick runt of a litter of piglets. The amount of failed abortions where the fetus is born alive is astonishing. And the way the situation is typically dealt with is equally so. Google is not your friend here.

The fact we have laws that protect his practice, is dumbfounding. I have a relative who is a hardcore pro-lifer. One of the sign holding activists. I always kept that conversation at a distance, as It was a debate I never wished to have with her, as I never really had a position. I gave her a call today, looking for some guidance. Not an opinion, just what was it that gave you that opinion? She forwarded me to some online "source material" of a late term somewhat botched procedure, and as a grown man of 36 years, I have no shame in admitting what I saw levelled me to tears, and that happens.... never. I witnessed a murder, not a medical procedure. Even if the agenda she delivered was somewhat stilted, there is too much evidence out there to deny the reality that what I saw was not an isolated scenario.

Yes, there are medical reasons, for some of these procedures. But many are nothing but self serving, lifestyle, me first decisions. In those instances, I truly believe that any woman considering this procedure, outside of a life or death scenario, must be forced to watch a video of the procedure that they delicately hide from your view under that sheet. And by forced, I mean, in a neutral location, controlled by a neutral panel. Words and symbols are randomly interspersed in the video, that have to be accurately written down, to assure the material is watched. You wanna do it, know what it is you are authorizing first. Confront it, own it, don't hide from the brutal reality of it. After what I saw, I know, I could never live with that on my conscious.

Would it result in some unwanted, handicapped, or mentally disabled children, yes of course. But that is still a better scenario than straight up killing. I cannot and will not be led to believe that the positioning of a head, in or out of a uterus, determines your rights as a human.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by pylon

Would it result in some unwanted, handicapped, or mentally disabled children, yes of course. But that is still a better scenario than straight up killing. I cannot and will not be led to believe that the positioning of a head, in or out of a uterus, determines your rights as a human.

This is just an FYI since you're researching this, I thought it might help you a bit.

They stopped using the method you're thinking about in 2003:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial...ortion_Ban_Act

President Obama strongly opposed the Partial Birth Abortion Act and still does.

When George Tiller was murdered, he was one of three doctors in the US that actively performed 'late term' abortions. He called himself a 'Soldier for God' and his method was to first inject a solution into the fetus' heart and then have the mother deliver the child stillborn but induction of labour.

People came from all over to have this procedure done. Some of the situations were pretty heartbreaking, and although it did happen, seldom were the late terms done for convenience. Normally it had something to do with the health of the baby. I do NOT condone this, but I am just saying that most of the time women did this because there was something wrong with the baby and they didn't want to face dealing with it. What would happen was they would take (usually) 10 women at a time (at the clinic) and stop their fetus' hearts. Then the women would go to a hotel (which was guarded and staffed with nurses) while labour was induced. They would have their stillborn babies at the clinic when they were ready to deliver, and a lot of times they would then have a funeral for them. (I know this is what happened at the clinic in Wichita, not sure about any others.) I think there are two other places in the US that will still use this method, but doctors in their right mind don't want the death threats, legal hassles, picketers, attention- and they don't want to take the chance of being murdered like Dr. Tiller and others before him. There was a widely publicized case once of the solution not working and the baby was born alive. The baby was sent to the hospital for immediate medical treatment, and the coverage on the news of the ambulance leaving the clinic, etc, was extensive. There were also several cases of the mother having the stillborn fetus in their hotel room without being able to make it back to the clinic.

If it makes you feel any better, I think there are only two doctors in the US who will do this today.

It's really, really sad this has to happen at all. I am sorry you're so upset.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by pylon

After reading the article yesterday, I have given myself a crash course in late term abortions. And any sensible human being cannot see this as anything but killing a living being, period. I am sure, in a couple hundred years, this will be looked back upon as a barbaric, horrific, and primative act. I am sure by that time, reproduction will be a more predictable science to avoid these scenarios, but even taking scientific or religious implications out of it, this is nothing more than sugar coating the human equivelant of drowning unwanted kittens, or stomping the sick runt of a litter of piglets. The amount of failed abortions where the fetus is born alive is astonishing. And the way the situation is typically dealt with is equally so. Google is not your friend here.

The fact we have laws that protect his practice, is dumbfounding. I have a relative who is a hardcore pro-lifer. One of the sign holding activists. I always kept that conversation at a distance, as It was a debate I never wished to have with her, as I never really had a position. I gave her a call today, looking for some guidance. Not an opinion, just what was it that gave you that opinion? She forwarded me to some online "source material" of a late term somewhat botched procedure, and as a grown man of 36 years, I have no shame in admitting what I saw levelled me to tears, and that happens.... never. I witnessed a murder, not a medical procedure. Even if the agenda she delivered was somewhat stilted, there is too much evidence out there to deny the reality that what I saw was not an isolated scenario.

Yes, there are medical reasons, for some of these procedures. But many are nothing but self serving, lifestyle, me first decisions. In those instances, I truly believe that any woman considering this procedure, outside of a life or death scenario, must be forced to watch a video of the procedure that they delicately hide from your view under that sheet. And by forced, I mean, in a neutral location, controlled by a neutral panel. Words and symbols are randomly interspersed in the video, that have to be accurately written down, to assure the material is watched. You wanna do it, know what it is you are authorizing first. Confront it, own it, don't hide from the brutal reality of it. After what I saw, I know, I could never live with that on my conscious.

Would it result in some unwanted, handicapped, or mentally disabled children, yes of course. But that is still a better scenario than straight up killing. I cannot and will not be led to believe that the positioning of a head, in or out of a uterus, determines your rights as a human.

I hear you Pylon, I've been debating entering into this discussion because I have pretty strong feelings about this.

Just a story first, my sister when she was pregnent was told by her doctor that there was a chance that she was going to have a Down's baby, the doctor kept talking about aborting the child and the quality of life for the child. Eventually my sister decided that they would have the baby and love it unconditionally no matter what. My nephew Malcolm was born 8 years ago, he was not a Down's baby, he's a brilliant slightly over active imaginative kid.

I get the neccesity of abortion, I get that the mothers life can be a risk, or it was a baby conceived through sexual assault or its an abnormal baby.

I have problems with abortion being a method for birth control, I really do, especially the stuff thats later term. I have trouble with the stories of woman who have had multiple abortions because they didn't want the baby or they made yet another mistake.

I get the debate about when a glob of cells is a fetus is a person, and I keep going back to the end point. The end point of that glob of cells is a human being, we all know this.

Not to pick on an earlier poster who mentioned the 22 week thing, but I had to look up fetal development at 22 weeks.

At 22 weeks the fetus is moving, its heart is beating its drawing food, its brain pathways are developing.

I think that in terms of birth control, there has to be a limit of the first trimester, if its developmental we should look at 2nd trimester. If its going to cause health issues for mothers, or something goes severally wrong with the baby then you can look at late terms.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Did you even read the link? Where do you think unwanted babies go after being born?

"How many children were adopted with public agency involvement in FY 2009? 57,466"
"How old were the children when they were adopted from the public foster care system?"
Less than 1 Year
2%
1,136

"How many children entered foster care during FY 2009? 255,418"
Less than 1 Year
16%
40,931


So by your logic if the second is not contingent on the first, and the statement that there are more couples waiting than babies available is true, there should be no babies in foster care...

Absolutely, I read the link. In fact I took it one step further ... I comprehended the information as well as the concept and purpose of foster care. I also looked at some of the other material which confirmed what Calgaryborn stated. Entering foster care and eligibility for adoption are two very different concepts. It can take years for the foster child's "real" parent(s) to lose their parental rights, in which case a foster child is not eligible for adoption. The numbers you've present reflect nothing of this reality.

None of your figures ... and I state this as fact ... include arranged adoptions whether by public or private organizations. In other words, expecting women that choose to give up their babies to adoptive parent(s) do not go through foster care, because they are voluntarily abdicating parental responsibility and rights to the adoptive parents. It's this area of adoption that has a long list of waiting parents. Rightly or wrongly, it's such a pain in the you-know-what to go through the rigors of adopting out of foster care that this is the vastly preferable option.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Absolutely, I read the link. In fact I took it one step further ... I comprehended the information as well as the concept and purpose of foster care. I also looked at some of the other material which confirmed what Calgaryborn stated. Entering foster care and eligibility for adoption are two very different concepts. It can take years for the foster child's "real" parent(s) to lose their parental rights, in which case a foster child is not eligible for adoption. The numbers you've present reflect nothing of this reality.

None of your figures ... and I state this as fact ... include arranged adoptions whether by public or private organizations. In other words, expecting women that choose to give up their babies to adoptive parent(s) do not go through foster care, because they are voluntarily abdicating parental responsibility and rights to the adoptive parents. It's this area of adoption that has a long list of waiting parents. Rightly or wrongly, it's such a pain in the you-know-what to go through the rigors of adopting out of foster care that this is the vastly preferable option.

I am not trying to be argumentative here, but no one has shown stats that show that there is a huge imbalance between babies available for adoption (private or foster) and couples waiting for a adopted baby. These were the best stats I came up with.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by zuluking

What you seem to be suggesting is that any arbitrary developmental milestone is potentially valid except for the one cell stage.

again, I don't know where the line should be drawn. Not to be overly scientific, I do think the line should be when there is structure, function and organization to the cluster of cells - i.e. the cells should begin some differentiation. Prior to differentiation, if the cells were to be separated from one another, each cell would be capable of forming a human being - essentially an embryonic stem cell. Once differentiation begins, the cells need one another to form the whole.

The four developmental milestones listed are not arbitrary to scientists.

(in layman terms)

1. The primitive streak is the embryo. Everything else will become the placenta, umblicus, yolk sac, amnion etc. Without development of the primitive streak, there will be no baby. That happens around 14 days after fertilization.

2. Formation of the neural tube is the future central nervous system. Without that, there is no viable baby - it is a critical step in embryology that dictates subsequent embryological events. That occurs around 25-28 days

3. Closure of the neural tube signifies development of the early brain. Some think that what distinguishes humans from other primates is higher brain function, therefore development of the human brain is thought by some to be the limit. This occurs around 28-30 days

4. When I said heartbeat, I meant development of the early circulatory system (~5 weeks), not just random pulsating heart muscle cells (which occurs around 20 days). At this stage the nervous system and the circulatory system begin to tie together the whole body, and their is the beginning of co-ordinated organ system functions

Obviously, there is far more to it than my message board blurb. Scientists spend their career studying the fine cellular and molecular details. Bioethicists use that information (and more) to have come up with these 4 milestones. Doesn't mean their opinions are correct, but I like that there is scientific justification for each.

to address BigBrodieFan, I don't think it's a useless debate. I think it's a facinating one that intelligent people should have, preferably without malice to towards those who may have a different point of view

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

I am not trying to be argumentative here, but no one has shown stats that show that there is a huge imbalance between babies available for adoption (private or foster) and couples waiting for a adopted baby. These were the best stats I came up with.

And all I'm saying is your stats are invalid and should not be put forth as an argument for or against the original statement regarding an adoption waiting list.


"This analysis has also shown that nearly 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., they were in demand for a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent. " ... jump to the Conclusion: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_027.pdf

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

Yes, but those same human cells that are cultured in a petri dish are not the same as zygotes which are continuously undergoing cell division as part of the development of a new and unique individual.

as long as I keep feeding them, those human cells are continuously undergoing cell division. With scientific/medical intervention, anyone of those cells could be developed into a human - the knowledge, capability and technology is there. Obviously, no one in the western world would be allowed to do this.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

again, I don't know where the line should be drawn. Not to be overly scientific, I do think the line should be when there is structure, function and organization to the cluster of cells - i.e. the cells should begin some differentiation. Prior to differentiation, if the cells were to be separated from one another, each cell would be capable of forming a human being - essentially an embryonic stem cell. Once differentiation begins, the cells need one another to form the whole.

The four developmental milestones listed are not arbitrary to scientists.

(in layman terms)

1. The primitive streak is the embryo. Everything else will become the placenta, umblicus, yolk sac, amnion etc. Without development of the primitive streak, there will be no baby. That happens around 14 days after fertilization.

2. Formation of the neural tube is the future central nervous system. Without that, there is no viable baby - it is a critical step in embryology that dictates subsequent embryological events. That occurs around 25-28 days

3. Closure of the neural tube signifies development of the early brain. Some think that what distinguishes humans from other primates is higher brain function, therefore development of the human brain is thought by some to be the limit. This occurs around 28-30 days

4. When I said heartbeat, I meant development of the early circulatory system (~5 weeks), not just random pulsating heart muscle cells (which occurs around 20 days). At this stage the nervous system and the circulatory system begin to tie together the whole body, and their is the beginning of co-ordinated organ system functions

Obviously, there is far more to it than my message board blurb. Scientists spend their career studying the fine cellular and molecular details. Bioethicists use that information (and more) to have come up with these 4 milestones. Doesn't mean their opinions are correct, but I like that there is scientific justification for each.

to address BigBrodieFan, I don't think it's a useless debate. I think it's a facinating one that intelligent people should have, preferably without malice to towards those who may have a different point of view

Although I'm no scientist or bioethicist (as you've probably guessed!), I would suggest the first developmental milestone is fertilization. As without that milestone, no other milestone is possible - differentiation, structure, organization or otherwise.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Although I'm no scientist or bioethicist (as you've probably guessed!), I would suggest the first developmental milestone is fertilization. As without that milestone, no other milestone is possible - differentiation, structure, organization or otherwise.

If you wanted to get into such detail, you can list many things, such as germ layer separation (I think that's within days of fertilization. It was listed that the inner cell mass was created within 14). I think these were the primary milestones of fetus development and listing fertilization is a bit trivial, as it is the marker of the start of that system anyways.

EDIT - As to where I stand on the issue: I'm almost a fair fit down the middle. I believe that abortions should be legal and ethical until the point where the child has a reasonable chance of survival post abortion, in which case only overruling circumstances regarding the status of the mother would give just cause for the operation.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by zuluking

And all I'm saying is your stats are invalid and should not be put forth as an argument for or against the original statement regarding an adoption waiting list.


"This analysis has also shown that nearly 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., they were in demand for a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent. " ... jump to the Conclusion: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_027.pdf

That's the kind of report I was looking for, it certainly seems to support the statement that there are many more women looking for adoptions versus infants available. I stand corrected.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by kirant

If you wanted to get into such detail, you can list many things, such as germ layer separation (I think that's within days of fertilization. It was listed that the inner cell mass was created within 14). I think these were the primary milestones of fetus development and listing fertilization is a bit trivial, as it is the marker of the start of that system anyways.

EDIT - As to where I stand on the issue: I'm almost a fair fit down the middle. I believe that abortions should be legal and ethical until the point where the child has a reasonable chance of survival post abortion, in which case only overruling circumstances regarding the status of the mother would give just cause for the operation.

I don't want to get into such detail; I was only responding to the previous post. As per "reasonable chance of survival", that's a moving target thanks to medical breakthroughs. So that's kind of the crux: who decides "reasonable chance?" And does that move when the next breakthrough in premature viability of birth occurs? To me, it all seems a bit arbitrary and when it comes to human life, arbitrary is not ideal.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

a
to address BigBrodieFan, I don't think it's a useless debate. I think it's a facinating one that intelligent people should have, preferably without malice to towards those who may have a different point of view

I wasn't trying to insult you, sorry if it came across that way. I just think that debating about 'when life starts' is really not an issue to pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Pro-lifers are going to argue that abortion should be illegal, pro-choicers will argue that it should be legal. I was just trying to state that people's minds aren't easily changed on the subject and I apologize if I came across as rude or brass.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by zuluking

So that's kind of the crux: who decides "reasonable chance?" And does that move when the next breakthrough in premature viability of birth occurs?

In theory, this would be a government set standard and would have to regulate this. I feel this is a better solution that having a set cut off age in the body, because, as you've mentioned, the technology will make the age obsolete and would fuel complaints that the technology exists to keep a child alive and instead are getting aborted. If course, this all falls into ideality. I made the assumption that government functions properly and does not exist along party lines, something that doesn't exist often in Canada.

Of course, we could always say "the child has the ability to support itself"...though that would far lag (even today) behind the support given for premature births.

[Cole436]

Joining the discussion late, but I thought I should chime in.
I'm very pro-choice and this disgusts me. My opinion on abortions are that women have the right to their body over the right to the baby's life, only if she does not agree to let the baby live in her.
But when you start hitting 6 months in that's unacceptable outside of extreme cases, the women has obviously known she has been pregnant for some time and has allowed the baby to grow.

Now saying all that I don't believe the doctor should be charged. He is doing his job at a legal practise. The methods in which he does so are extreme, but regardless it's the same result, cutting the spinal cord to end the baby's life. I do not understand the need to induce labour but it's the same end.

The coldest way to state it is simple, don't hate the player, hate the game.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Joining the discussion late, but I thought I should chime in.
I'm very pro-choice and this disgusts me. My opinion on abortions are that women have the right to their body over the right to the baby's life, only if she does not agree to let the baby live in her.
But when you start hitting 6 months in that's unacceptable outside of extreme cases, the women has obviously known she has been pregnant for some time and has allowed the baby to grow.

Now saying all that I don't believe the doctor should be charged. He is doing his job at a legal practise. The methods in which he does so are extreme, but regardless it's the same result, cutting the spinal cord to end the baby's life. I do not understand the need to induce labour but it's the same end.

The coldest way to state it is simple, don't hate the player, hate the game.

Wha?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

I wasn't trying to insult you, sorry if it came across that way. I just think that debating about 'when life starts' is really not an issue to pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Pro-lifers are going to argue that abortion should be illegal, pro-choicers will argue that it should be legal. I was just trying to state that people's minds aren't easily changed on the subject and I apologize if I came across as rude or brass.

I actually think that most people's minds can be changed, at least to a degree, through discussion and education. People at the extremes aren't going to be swayed (is there an extreme pro choice movement? Like abortions at any time at all? Seems like a hard position to support) but the people in the middle, which is most of us, could probably be moved in terms of the timing issue.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

I wasn't trying to insult you, sorry if it came across that way. I just think that debating about 'when life starts' is really not an issue to pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Pro-lifers are going to argue that abortion should be illegal, pro-choicers will argue that it should be legal. I was just trying to state that people's minds aren't easily changed on the subject and I apologize if I came across as rude or brass.

I'm pro-life and I never once argued that abortion should be illegal. If someone wants one for any reason that is none of my business.